P.O.D.: The Band That Shook A Punk Kid

I owe a debt to “Payable On Death.” They helped lift me out of the miry (and stanky) clay of  mid to late ’90s alternative rock and rapcore.

In my early to mid-teens I was a sucker for bands like Soundgarden, Deftones, Beastie Boys, and, I’m afraid to admit: Limp Bizkit. I was a “good” church kid that didn’t miss a Sunday or Wednesday service thanks to my mom, but I wouldn’t categorize myself as much more than a spectator among Christian festivities back then. And though I assimilated much about cultural Christianity into my life during that time, I had a serious aversion to the Christian music industry.

With all due respect to Amy Grant, Michael W. Smith, and dc Talk,* I couldn’t shake the notion that the only thing that Christian music had to offer was, well, cheese.

Then along came P.O.D. Their “Southtown” release helped ignite the beginning of the short lived “rapcore” rage. At the end of my 9th grade year I happened to stumble upon a $1.99 demo that featured their song “Lie Down” (still have it memorized).

I was shocked and hooked at once.

A bold and refreshing new world of Christian music opened up to me. It didn’t include keyboard solos and “Jesus is my boyfriend” sentiments. It had nasty guitar riffs, timely screaming, Rastafarian undertones, and contrarian lyrics like:

They feed us lies, dress up my King in false disguise

Behind those eyes, soul of Savior I recognize

No compromise, while the whole world becomes corrupt

Tonight we break the surface for lives, we comin’ up

There’s probably a lot more that can be said about P.O.D.’s choices for collaborations and album cover art, but not here.

I owe them more than that.

They helped me find my two choices were not limited to Nine Inch Nails or Steven Curtis Chapman in the musical style spectrum. There possibly was a righteous middle ground. If it’s tricky to rock and rhyme (as Run DMC stated so well), it is even trickier to rock and rhyme in a Christ-honoring fashion. Props to the bands who even attempt it.

My passion for P.O.D. has waned significantly in my adulthood (I have a more mellow pallate now) but my appreciation for them has not. The band God used to help spark my formative spiritual years still finds itself caught in a cultural rock and religious hard spot. P.O.D. is still somewhat too hardcore for the Christian music scene and too Christian for the hardcore music scene.

But I remember a time when listening to their heavy handed riffs and Christological lyrics was like a desert traveler drinking from a fire hydrant.

In a CCM land of cookie cutter music styles, cliché chorus lines, spray tans, and self conscious image projections, a gritty movement arose. That movement included a dreadlocked, tatted up, metal cover band with a passion for the youth of a nation.

One misguided youth caught their vision and hasn’t quite been the same.

I couldn’t tell you one song on the latest P.O.D. albums. But for old times sake, and as a tribute to the first “Christian” band I ever liked, I’ll conclude with this:

Tribal Warriors unite!

Bryan Daniels

*I appreciate ALL kinds of music now; I’m not hating on my boy Michael W. Smith, peeps!

Any bands or artists that had a great impact on you as a youth?

Divine Moral Monster: Slavery In The Bible

Some people have little capacity for nuance (historical-contextual-grammatical) when reading Scripture.

This is detrimental especially when studying the hyper-sensitive and complex issue of slavery within the Bible. The word “slavery” in America has strong brutal race specific connotations attached to it. The whole ungodly “industry” of that regrettable time revolved around greed and abuse. If the Bible condones slavery like that, then we have good reason to do a double take with Scripture’s veracity.

But let’s be clear:

The Bible doesn’t condone slavery in that form at all.

Professor Paul Copan (excellent thinker on the subject) says:

We should compare Hebrew debt-servanthood (many translations render this “slavery”) more fairly to apprentice-like positions to pay off debts — much like the indentured servitude during America’s founding when people worked for approximately 7 years to pay off the debt for their passage to the New World. Then they became free.

The forced lifelong subjection of American slavery had little resemblance of Hebrew (OT)  servant hood in the bible. Masters could hire servants “from year to year” and were not to “rule over … [them] ruthlessly” (Leviticus 25:46,53). The Old Testament prohibited unavoidable lifelong servanthood — unless someone loved his master and wanted to attach himself to him (in many cases this happened!)  (Exodus 21:5).

Most servants in the Hebrew biblical context were to be treated as part of the family and were practically live in servants until their debt was paid. Even if they didn’t pay all their debts, Old Testament Law commanded the servants be released after every seventh year with all debts forgiven (Leviticus 25:35-43) This was wholly unlike (and radically progressive) the other Ancient Near Eastern slave laws of the day. J.A. Motyer says:

“Hebrew has no vocabulary of slavery, only of servanthood.”

The Old Testament also instituted anti-kidnapping laws that were absent in other ANE laws. One unique feature of the Mosaic Law is its condemnation of kidnapping a person to sell as a slave — an act which is punishable by death (Exodus 21:16; cp. Deuteronomy 24:7). Kidnapping is how slavery in the old South was nurtured; African kidnappers and traffickers got the ball rolling for the American plantation owners.

Other Old Testament provisions that were an improvement on other Ancient Near Eastern practices was release the of injured servants (Exodus 21:26,27). Also, Israel was to offer safe harbor to foreign runaway slaves (Deuteronomy 23:15,16) — a marked contrast to the Southern states’ Fugitive Slave Law.

Some may claim the Old Testament allows for lifelong servitude of “foreign slaves” in Leviticus 25:42-46. But some things to consider:

God was giving foreign runaway slaves protection within Israel’s borders so they would not have to be returned to their harsh masters. They would be house servants with rights in Israel and not mere property like in other lands (Deuteronomy 23:15,16)

Foreigners had no ability to own land in Israel (for obvious nation-preserving reasons). The safest most logical way for them to survive would be to attach themselves to a family as a household servant. Servants in Israel were considered part of the family.

Verse 47 shows these same foreign servants could purchase their own freedom if they had the means. The point: All servants in Israel, even foreign ones, had the potential to be released freemen.

Slavery in The New Testament

The New Testament era unfolded in a time when 85% of Roman population consisted of slaves in varying positions. The type practiced in Rome was of the more contemporary assumed “property” form of slavery. Roman slaves had decidedly less citizen rights than Hebrew servants (I wonder why that was?)

But the NT still has some important commentary on slavery in Roman context.

In Old South slavery (and in some ways Roman slavery), slaves were deemed less than human. On the other hand, Paul states slaves were morally responsible full fledged persons capable of living to the glory of God. (Colossians 3:22-25)

Slaves also were fellow image bearers of God, and granted equal human/spiritual status with all peoples (Galatians 3:28) Galatians 3:28 may have been the most radical human rights statement to ever fall on ancient Roman ears.

In Old South slavery, slave traders were greedy ruthless traffickers who treated humans as mere cargo. On the other hand, Paul condemns such slave traders and proclaims their practices as a violation of inherent human dignity (1 Tim 1:9,10).

If the slave owners of the South actually practiced the parameters of servanthood expounded in the Old and New Testament, that would have been the practical abolition of slavery as they knew it.

But they didn’t, greed ruled the day for them, and the blood of countless thousands of slaves and soldiers bear witness to this.

Some may lament that the Bible seems to only regulate the scope and type of servanthood allowed, and not overtly condemn it.

Well, God reserved the clearest condemnation of slavery for the lips of His own dear Son.

The Abolitionist Statement of Jesus

When God in the flesh initially came onto scene in His public ministry, He clearly opposed all forms of human oppression in His all-consuming mission statement (which was lifted from the Old Testament!):


You see

Apart from Christ

We are all slaves to something.

Slaves to sin in need of a Perfect Master to grant us true freedom by His own precious blood.

As newly purchased and redeemed we are slaves to Christ, and much more than that, sons and daughters of the Most High King.

Bryan Daniels

Saint Patrick: Green Beer Has Nothing To Do With Him

Contrary to popular belief, Saint Patrick’s Day wasn’t founded on creepy leprechauns, cheesy parades, and nasty green beer. The day also originally had nothing to do with getting so incomprehensibly slobber-knocked that even Irish cuisine begins to taste good (Crubeens? Black Pudding?!). Saint Patrick’s Day was actually founded on a real Christian missionary who wasn’t even Irish.

Though much of the life of Saint Patrick, the patron saint of Ireland, has been mythologized, there are a couple solid historical sources that remain about the fifth century saint.

At the ripe young age of sixteen, Patrick was abducted by Irish raiders from his home of Britain and sold as a slave.  After six years of subjection as a slave herdsmen the young Patrick escaped and returned to the Motherland. But he returned to his aristocratic family a changed man. In his Irish enslavement he had found freedom in the

He probably wasn't really a "Snake Whisperer"

renewed faith of his childhood Christianity. And this calling of God wouldn’t keep him away from the hilly Irish countryside for long.

One passage in his work Confessio, St. Patrick’s spiritual autobiography, tells of a dream after his return to Britain, in which he was delivered a letter headed “The Voice of the Irish.” As he read it, he seemed to hear a certain company of Irish beseeching him to walk once more among them.

“Deeply moved,” he wrote, “I could read no more.”

Being relatively uneducated did not stop him from answering the call and after a short study stint he was ordained by Saint Germanus the Bishop Auxerre. Once he found himself on Irish shores he traveled extensively, zealously preached the gospel, and baptized peasants and political leaders into the Kingdom.

Preaching the gospel in a country steeped in pagan and Druid religion, Patrick was in constant endangerment of martyrdom with local kings, lawgivers and commoners. On top of this, Ecclesiastical powers back in Britain doubted his motives and charged him with seeking ministry “office for the sake of office.”  Despite this, he would many times gain favor with local leaders by bearing gifts, and always refusing gifts in return. For roughly 40 years of traveling poverty he preached incessantly to every Irish ear that would hear him, to the point Catholic history credits St. Patrick with “converting all of Ireland.”

Despite these ministry successes he was a humble man who died in relative obscurity. His autobiography, Confessio, is considered by many to be the most honest soul bearing account of any religious diarist, save St. Augustine. Patrician scholar, D.A. Binchy, has said, “The moral and spiritual greatness of the man shines through every stumbling sentence of his rustic’ Latin.”

So the next time you’re compelled to wear green, eat corn beef and cabbage, or watch the cult classic “The Leprechaun”,

stop and think about this humble bold saint.

Are you relatively uneducated?

Do you have a tragic and abusive past?

Does your speaking or writing have a “stumbling” quality about it?

Do those in high places doubt your calling?

So what.

God wants to turn the eternal destinies of nations and He desires do it with the most humble broken means at His expense. When there is nothing to boast of human ingenuity and power, that is how God will get the most glory.

“God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise.” (1 Cor 1:27)

He sovereignly did it in Saint Patrick’s life.

He can do it in ours.

Bryan Daniels

When God Sends The Harvest To Your Front Door

I guess one of the benefits of being off for Spring Break is the opportunity for more Jehovah Witness encounters at the house.

They usually just drop off their Watchtower Literature because no one’s home. But this morning I had the opportunity to have a biblical discussion with two older gentlemen from the local Kingdom Hall. They first made some general points about the end times and the marks of a true Christian, which I had no problem affirming. But before they left I guided the discussion to the physical resurrection of the body (which they deny) and finally the Trinity (which they deny).

We had an amicable Word-centered dialogue for about 30 minutes. The last 1o minutes or so they attempted to excuse themselves from the conversation but I kept plodding along with my point or posed a different question I had for them.

“We’ll talk more about the Trinity when we come back!” One said.

“I’d love that!” I said. “These kind of discussions help keep me on my toes.”

I shook hands with them, told them when they could reach me, and promised an open door anytime I was home.

What was pretty cool in retrospect was that I had just happened upon the above infographic from Challies site right before my encounter. The Trinity is a mysterious and beautiful doctrine no finite mind can grasp. Unfortunately, Jehovah Witnesses explain it away on supposed logical grounds (one said to me “How can the Son be God and have to pray to God the Father?”) or an argument from silence (the other said to me, “The word Trinity is not even in the Bible.”). Other well-meaning Christians fall in the opposite ditch and try to explain the Trinity too much (as the graphic illustrates).

I shared with the gentlemen “If we could put the nature of God in a nice tidy box we could comprehend then He would cease being God.”

I asked them:

“Could Jehovah answer a prayer right here in Lynn Haven, FL and simultaneously answer a prayer in Africa and Asia?”


“Could He answer thousands of prayers at once?”


“Explain to me in logical terms how Jehovah could do that.”

They stared at me for a few moments and changed the subject.

Of course, with all such encounters you replay each argument after the fact and critique your failure to sound like a multiple PHd in biblical languages, theology, and philosophy. But I think the door is open for more dialogue, and I need dissenting opinions to keep me sharp and humble.

I hope we never miss an opportunity to witness to someone knocking down our door so we can explain to them the Scriptures. (1 Peter 3:15)

And let’s not worry if we don’t know all the technical answers. God can use the fumbling stuttering words of any humble saint who desires to please Him and be faithful to His Word. He did it with Moses. He can do it with us.

We plant simple powerful gospel seeds, God makes them grow as He wills. (1 Cor 3:7)

Peace and Grace,

Bryan Daniels

“All Of the Founding Fathers Were Agnostics And Deists!”

In honor of President’s Day…Enjoy!

Chief of the least

In case you’re wondering what the fireworks, parades and cookout clamor is all about this time of year, let me give you a one sentence history lesson on July 4th: Independence Day is when Americans (winning!) celebrate the adoption of the Declaration of Independence that happened on July 4, 1776, which declared American Colonial independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain.

I’m thankful the founding fathers had the backbone to stand up to the bloody Motherland and sign that Revolutionary document of epic proportions. Otherwise we’d all be sporting bad teeth and eating crappy food right now; Or even worse, obsessed with the marriage of Prince William and Kate Middleton.

There is another legacy I am thankful the FF left behind too. This one is to the chagrin of strange secular e-scholars armed with gobs of misinformation. If you do a tertiary Google search of the “Founding Fathers Religion” you just might walk away with an overwhelming impression that America was founded on Deism and Agnosticism.

As my scorned…

View original post 653 more words

The Secret Success Of A Hated Life

“Unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies it remains alone; but if it dies it bears much fruit. Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life.” (John 12:25)

Jesus preached the anti-prosperity gospel of modern American evangelicalism. He also would have had no part in the modern psyscho-babble self-esteem feel goody shtick of Dr. Phil wannabe pastors.

The immediate context of this verse shows Jesus speaking to the disciples towards the closing of His earthly ministry. When the Greeks came to seek him (v 21) He knew the end was near for Him, as this signaled a final chapter to his public ministry to the Jews (v 23). He could have no ministry to the Gentiles until He died as a sin offering for them, as an imperishable seed that would bear much eternal fruit.

What a curious and shocking message this would have been to the inquiring Greeks. If they sought Jesus simply as another Caesar, with similar royal pomp and ambitious military strategy, they were sadly mistaken.  For the first time and ever since, this was a Kingdom that would be invincibly advanced not by protecting the King, but by the murder of the King.

The Lord they were seeking came to carry a cross, not a crown. He was a Servant who would be subject to a terrifying crucifixion, not a coronation.

Such biblical paradox has been too much of a stumbling block to bear for many a modern Greek inquirer.

If that wasn’t disturbing enough look at how Jesus applies this message to his hearers. “Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in the world will keep it for eternal life.” Or in other words, Jesus said, “If you claim Me, your life will look my life.”

The follower of Christ, the “Christian”, must hate his life “in this world.” This is not a call to some type of introspective self-centered self loathing. This is a call to bury and hold a funeral for one’s inherent love for the world and its possessions, pleasures, riches and rewards. Even good things may stand in the way of the soul’s prosperity (true biblical prosperity). They must be counted as a hated enemy for the sake of the love of God. The man who loses everything gains more than everything.

The world has been “crucified to me and I to the world” (Gal 6:14). The world system is dead. It has no power over me. It no longer has the right to fascinate me with its temporal trappings. How does a dead man respond to a dead world? True, prosperous, eternal life is found in the answer.

As JC Ryle once wrote:” The way of self-crucifixion and sanctification may seem foolishness and wasteful to the world, just as burying good seed seems wasteful to the child and the fool. But there never lived the man who did not find that, by sowing to the Spirit, he reaped life everlasting.”

Maybe a more accurate modern Christian moniker would be: “God loves you and has an agonizing plan for you life.”

It was the life Dietrich Bonhoeffer alluded to when he said, “When Jesus calls a man, he bids him come and die.” It was the life of the early Christian dissenters of Roman Paganism, the early Protestant rebellion against Roman legalism, and now it is the life of the current non Western underground church world-wide.

Jesus unequivocally promised us two things: Eternal life and a Cross.

Brothers and sisters, what more do we need?

What more do we want?

What more do we have?

Bryan Daniels

The Deathbed Confession Of A Great Doctor

On the organization of the theological seminary at Princeton university in 1812, Dr. Archibald Alexander was unanimously chosen as the leading professor. As the number of students increased and other professors were added to the faculty, he was enabled to direct his attention more particularly to the department of pastoral and polemic theology. He labored with zeal and success within the halls of Christian academia till his death, a period of nearly forty years. His powers both for pulpit oratory and polemic exposition were considered extraordinary in his day. His work “Outlines of Moral Science” earned this praise from the Westminster Review: “a calm, clear stream of abstract reasoning, flowing from a thoughtful, well-instructed mind, without any parade of logic, but with an intuitive simplicity and directness which gives an almost axiomatic force.”

He had an exquisite intellect.

After Dr. Alexander had labored as a preacher of Christ for sixty years, and a professor of divinity for forty, he died on the 22nd October, 1851. On his death-bed, he was heard to say to a  friend:

“All my theology is reduced to this narrow compass—Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners.”

Moral of the story? Don’t be enamored with the great minds who may argue for or against Christianity. Be enamored with the sinless Savior who saves worthless sinners (2 Cor 5:21).

Bryan Daniels

Bible Contradictions: How to Hate Your Mom While Honoring Her (Luke 14:26)

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters — yes, even his own life — he cannot be my disciple.” Luke 14:26

I’ll admit it. This isn’t one of the few verses my wife and I have tried to commit to my three-year old son’s formative sponge like memory.

I don’t remember it being stressed by my parents in my early childhood either, though I do recall a reference or two to the fifth commandment: “Honor thy mother and father…” (Exodus 20:12)

I imagine many parents wouldn’t appreciate the questions an inquiring six-year-old mind could muster up with a reading of Luke 14:26. But six-year olds who refuse to eat their greens aren’t the only ones with questions regarding this verse.

Many skeptics would make the claim that Luke 14:26 is a direct contradiction of Exodus 20:12 and Ephesians 6:2:

“‘Honor your father and mother’ — which is the first commandment with a promise.”

(To read my first post on Bible contradictions go here)

Skeptics and Six Year Olds Unite!

The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible tries to make the point for six-year olds. The SAB commentary says the command in Luke 14:26 is a blatant contradiction, “against family values”, and cruel in its intent. It is interesting how so many contemporary minds with no theological training claim exclusive interpretive authority when dissecting the meaning of verses. I wonder if they give the same respect and authority to pastors who may have an opinion on the origins of life (I digress).

To assume this skeptical stance on Luke 14:26 one would have to assume the word for “hate” in the Bible must only be restricted to its modern meaning: to despise, loathe or detest.

If “hate” is only restricted the 21st century understanding of the term, then Jesus never practiced such abhorrence against his madre. In reality, Christ ensured his mom was fully taken care of as he hung on the cross in his waning moments (John 19:25-27).

Jesus refused to subject his mother to a tired life of shuffleboard and Old Testament crossword puzzles. He loved her.

When the Rich Young Ruler inquired of eternal life one of Christ’s commands to him was to, “honor your mother and father” (Matthew 19:19).

How can we reconcile the command of Christ to honor our parents on one hand with the command of Christ to hate them in the other?

I Love Your Guts Less

A little historical language study would do the skeptic well here. It is well known that in ancient Jewish idiom, hate could also mean “love less.” Genesis 29:30-31 is a perfect example of this:

“Jacob also went in to Rachel, and he also loved Rachel more than Leah.” Yet, in the next verse the Bible says, “And when the Lord saw that Leah was hated, He opened her womb” (29:31, KJV). Jacob did not despise, detest, and treat Leah like an arch-enemy, as in the modern use of the word “hate.” Instead, he simply loved Rachel more than he loved Leah.

When  the love/hate contrast is paired together in ancient Eastern literature many times it is speaking not in terms of affection/disdain but of greater love/lesser love.

Numerous Greek scholars have added their combined years of study to the discussion to testify that the word “hate” (miseo) in Luke 14:26 does not mean “an active disdain,” but means “to love less.” For instance, E.W. Bullinger, in his work, “Figures of Speech Used in the Bible”, described the word “hate” in Luke 14:26 as hyperbole. He rendered the word as meaning “does not esteem them less than me.”

The point is not about actively hating one’s parents, it’s about loving Christ more than anyone or thing in the world, even the most intimate relationships we share on earth. If we love our parents more than we love Christ then we make them an idol. To make anyone an idol of our affection is not real love since it is not putting first the God who is Love.

Jesus clarifies everything

The “love less” sentiment of Luke 14:26 is found in the words of Christ in Matthew 10:37:

Matthew 10:37:

“Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.”

Luke 14:26 is a shocking way to say Christ should be supreme in all things, even in a child’s natural affection for his mother. Christ graciously used such radical statements to awaken us out of our hard hearted stupor. Such verbosity was necessary to penetrate our darkened dull hearts.

Luke 14:26 is simply another way of stressing the greatest commandment to us: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37).

When we love Christ above all, we point people to Christ and His undying love in the gospel. And in this way we truly honor people…especially our moms.

Bryan Daniels

Paranormal Activity 2: Good or Bad for the Christian Soul?

What should Christians make of a movie that may be the highest grossing horror film of all time? Partake and engage, or turn tail and run?

There are some serious reservations any biblically minded Christian should have when approaching a spiritual “horror” film. We know our flesh and blood is not the only reality of this world (Eph 6:18). Satan, demons, and spiritual darkness are real and are nothing to trifle with or take lightly.

For those who would be more given to feelings of terror and overwhelming fear during and after such a film, abstinence should be the wisest choice. Yet we must also gird ourselves with truth: there really is nothing to fear in Christ our eternal Protector. Those with faith in Christ have no cause for fear when approaching fabricated evil or even hell itself, for there is no torment in perfect love (1 John 4:8).

You’ve probably heard the secular definition of “Puritanism”, you know: “That sneaking suspicion someone, somewhere is having fun.” Christians don’t run campaigns against fun, they embark on missions for freedom in Christ. It is the mark of spiritual maturity to acknowledge that some forms of media avert our eyes from King Jesus and His liberty from every form of darkness.

But I do believe there is some subversive truth that can be dug out of exploding box office sales of this spiritual thriller. Movies like “Paranormal Activity” presuppose real “evil” in the world, even “spiritual evil.” People, even unbelieving ones, have physiological and emotional responses to many such films. You don’t scream, sweat and shake from watching a twisted Fairy Tale; you respond in those ways only if you truly believe what you are watching has some ground in reality.

To be honest, I’m still a bit freaked out by the slobbering trolls in that all time classic horror movie “Ernest Scared Stupid”. I’m pretty sure I spent much of that movie with my head in the chair and my butt in the air. My mom should have known that such a movie was not eight-year old friendly.

Some scars never heal.

But Paranormal Activity (and Ernest Scared Stupid), in a strange way affirms the biblical stance of spiritual darkness. Relativism, postmodernism, and secular humanism have very few coherent explanations for our inherent fascination and fear of the ethereal.

Films like Paranormal Activity 3 can bring up some provocative questions, and someone needs to be there to answer them with gospel truth.

Now certainly, Hollywood horror flicks leave the biblical worldview half undone. In these films, the gospel of Jesus Christ is never offered as the only blazing light to pierce the disturbing demonic darkness. But I wouldn’t expect Hollywood to be in the business of evangelism or spiritual warfare in the first place. That’s where we should come in. The gaping void left by insufficient worldly wisdom must filled with the other-wordly supremely sufficient gospel (1Cor 15:1-4).

I’ll forgo the opportunity to partake in Paranormalmania. I haven’t watched (much of) the previous two. My wife and I tried to watch the sequel after it came out on Redbox, but after the first 15 minutes we both felt weirded out enough to shut it down.  This is a personal conviction, not a sweeping mandate I would put on anyone else. If I want to come face to face with disturbing levels of evil, I need to look no further than my own heart and motives. My selfishness, self righteousness, and general bent towards hypocrisy are much more scarier than a trumped up faux story line with average effects and below average acting.

The evil on the screen is Hollywood. The evil within is real. Praise God the victory over my evil is equally real and realized in the cross of Christ (Colossians 2).

I doubt a new law can be constructed here for the Christian. Some should certainly forgo the opportunity to sow into a horror film that will gross enough to put a sizable dent in the Ethiopian hunger crisis. All who watch it need to honestly ask themselves as ambassadors of the kingdom of light: Is the best way to pierce the eternal darkness by investing our time and money into commercialized darkness?

Bryan Daniels

%d bloggers like this: